Maintaining ethno-religious harmony in Singapore
Khun Eng Kuah
Journal of Contemporary Asia
Vol.28 No.1
March 1998
pp.103-121
COPYRIGHT @ 1998 Journal of Contemporary Asia Publishers (Philippines)

¡@

            The march towards the twenty first century, the end of the cold war
            and the changing socioeconomic conditions experienced by most 
            nation-states have brought about a world that is vastly different 
            from that of the nineteenth century where Weber and Marx first 
            sighted the significance of religion. Yet, despite changes in 
            religion, religious secularisation and the emergence of civil 
            religion, religion continues to exert great impact on the people. 
            Today in Asia, America, Europe, Africa and Latin America, there is a 
            strong resurgence in numerous religious movements for a variety of 
            reasons. In Latin America and parts of Asia, there is the emergence 
            of Christian-based Liberation Theology. In Eastern Europe, the 
            Croatians and Serbians are engaged in an ethno-religious war. 
            Elsewhere as in the Middle East and Asia, a strong religious, 
            fundamentalist movement have taken place. 
            In all these movements, the crux of the action is a self-renewal 
            process - of one's position and identity in a world that is 
            increasingly compressed in time and space. Rapid modernization has 
            brought about communication and technologies that allowed each 
            nation to have instant contact with the others. Diffusion of 
            cultural values, popular cultures, attitudes (predominantly American 
            and European), technological transfer and economic welfare, have 
            resulted in a level of cultural homogenisation among nations. In 
            Asia, this has been so. In Singapore, this is even more acute, 
            especially with its information open door policy and its secular 
            liberal education. 
            The rise of pan-religious movements across Asia and the 
            Middle-Eastern countries have set a trend for a renewed awareness 
            and sensitivity towards the needs to participate in these movements. 
            The pan-Islamic Dakwah Movement have galvanised forces among the 
            Islamic states, including Malaysia and Indonesia. Likewise, the 
            Hindu Revivalist Movement have set the Indian communities throughout 
            the Asian region in motion and the Buddhist Revivalism, brought 
            about by the formation of the World Buddhist Council, has penetrated 
            these countries as well. These movement have lend weight to 
            countries which are suffering from a decline in membership and are 
            facing competition from Christian evangelists. 
            One view argues that religious revivalism can be seen as (1) a 
            counter-movement to rationalisation, that is, against the 
            "demystification of the world," (2) an attempt to overcome the 
            pressures of modernisation; (3) a type of anti-imperialist, 
            anti-hegenionical movement; and (4) an expression of renewal 
            generated from within a given religion (Evers and Siddique, 1993: 
            2). Here, revivalism is seen as "an attempt to restructure the past 
            in a form relevant to contemporary concerns" (ibid: 2). 
            Others view this in the form of religious fundamentalism which 
            involves "innovation in scriptural interpretation, a less stringent 
            application of religious codes, secularism, liberalism and 
            rationality: in short, the adaptation of religious ideas and 
            practices to modern culture" (Caplan, 1987:9). This trend is to cope 
            with the impacts of modernity of the society. On the other hand, 
            fundamentalism further pushes the modernising trend by legitimising 
            the move. 
            Like elsewhere, in recent years, there has also been a general 
            revival of the main non-proselytizing religions in Singapore. The 
            Islamic Dakwah, the Hindu Revival and Buddhist Fundamentalist 
            movements have gathered momentum since the late seventies, in part, 
            in response to the active proselytizing Christian evangelical 
            movements. 
            This article explores the introduction of a White Paper and 
            subsequently an Act on the Maintenance of the Religious Harmony and 
            the rationale behind it. It examines the strength of the state, 
            through this Act, in redefining the roles of religion and the 
            boundary that its leaders could function within. 
            Religious Sensitivity in a Multi-Ethnic Singapore 
            In a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Singapore, religion and 
            religious affiliations have been taken to coincide with ethnicity. 
            The official categorization has led to the perpetuation of the 
            stereotypical images of Chinese as practising "Buddhism or Daoism," 
            the Indians as "Hindus," Malays as "Muslims" unless they stated 
            otherwise. Only the Christians do not fit his ethnic mould. Part of 
            the reason lies in its association with colonialism and in recent 
            years, its association with modernism. Christianity therefore is 
            seen to cut across the ethnic boundaries. This view is reinforced by 
            the positive correlation between ethnicity and religious affiliation 
            where 72.5% of the Chinese population are Buddhists and Daoists; 
            99.4% of the Malays are Muslims and 56.6% of Indians are Hindus. In 
            addition, 10.6% of Chinese, 0.3% Malays and 12.4% Indians are 
            Christians (Census of Population, 1980). Of the three ethnic groups, 
            the religious boundary of the Malays can be seen as the least 
            elastic with the smallest number of converts while the Chinese and 
            the Indians registered a much higher percentage of conversion. Part 
            of the challenge of these ethnic communities is to arrest the flow 
            to other faiths, essentially Christianity. 
            In Singapore, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam have traditionally 
            abstained from systematically proselytizing the individuals. They 
            each spread in their own time and gradually encompassing the 
            like-minded communities. Identity between religious belief and 
            community membership has remained unbroken among these communities. 
            In a way, this has also created a stable relationship among the 
            major ethnic communities in Singapore where religion continues to be 
            a focus of ethnic culture and identity. 
            The Singapore State, since independence, has been cautious with the 
            religious sensitivities of its ethnic composition. It monitors 
            closely the development and activities of the various religious 
            groups to ensure that the ethno-religious fabric remains 
            undisturbed. In this respect, it established policies and laws to 
            protect the ethno-religious framework of the Singapore society. 
            The Policy of Multi-Religiosity 
            When the PAP government inherited a multi-ethnic population, the 
            dice has already been casted. For the sake of social and political 
            stability, the PAP government has adopted a policy of muti-racialism 
            and multi-religiosity. At the first session of the first Parliament 
            of an independent Singapore in December 1965, the newly appointed 
            government spelt out the following policy: 
            ... one of the cornerstones of the policy of the Government is a 
            multi-racial Singapore. We are a nation comprising people of various 
            races 
            who constitute her citizens, and our citizens are equal regardless 
            of 
            differences of race, language, culture and religion. 
            Whilst a multi-racial secular society is an ideal espoused by many, 
            it is 
            a dire necessity for our survival in the midst of turmoil and the 
            pressure 
            of big power conflict...(Vasil cited in Ling, 1989: 692). 
            Literally, the multi-racial Singapore society expected its citizenry 
            to "intermingle and interact with each other in a spirit of 
            tolerance, understanding and mutual appreciation" (ibid: 693). The 
            state would facilitate and need be, intervene to ensure that such 
            attitude becomes the prevailing norm of the nation. The Singapore 
            state is a secular and religiously neutral state and therefore does 
            not take the side of either majority or minority religions. And it 
            deals with problems of a religious nature in a bureaucratic manner. 
            As early as 1949, the Inter-Religious Organisation was formed in 
            Singapore. This was: 
            ... an association of individuals in Singapore professing the 
            different 
            faiths prevailing in the island. Since 1949 it has worked 
            assiduously yet 
            unobtrusively in Singapore to create a climate of religious 
            understanding 
            and cooperation in order that religion should be a source of 
            national unity 
            rather than disunity (ibid: 695). 
            To ensure that each religious group functioned within its own 
            boundary, the government has never failed to use appropriate 
            occasions to remind the religious leaders and the religion of their 
            responsibility to the wider community at large. On one occasion, 
            addressing the conference organised by the Tamil Muslim Union in 
            1966, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew expressed his hope that: 
            the leaden of the Muslim community would always interpret Islamic 
            doctrine 
            in a way that would be to the benefit of its followers and the 
            general good 
            of the community (ibid: 694). 
            Implicit in Lee's statement was the hope that the interpretation of 
            the Islamic doctrine would also express the values espoused by the 
            state, i.e. multi-racialism, multi-religious tolerance, forbearance 
            and togetherness (ibid: 694). Likewise, Encik Rahim Ishak, the then 
            Minister of State for Education, a Muslim himself, urged the Islamic 
            leaders to shoulder wider responsibility and of the "abundant 
            opportunities that existed in the Republic for Muslims to improve 
            themselves educationally and economically" (ibid: 694). The state 
            has, since independence, acknowledged that the Malays as a minority 
            group has to be treated sensitively. The Administration of Muslim 
            Law was enacted and came into effect in 1966. Around the same time, 
            the Council of Muslim Religion, Majlis Ugama Islam (MUIS) was 
            established officially in 1968 to "assist Muslim organisations in 
            Singapore to regulate their affairs and to administer the Muslim 
            Law" (ibid: 694). 
            The Buddhists were also reminded of their social responsibility when 
            Lee addressed a Buddhist convention in 1967. He told the 
            congregation: 
            Let us face up to this problem of multi-culture, multi-religions and 
            
            multi-languages. Alone in Southeast Asia, we are a state without an 
            established church (ibid: 695). 
            In the seventies, the fervour of nationalism and national identity 
            was in the forefront on many of the Southeast Asian states. Malaysia 
            and Indonesia have established a national ideology encapsulating 
            Islam as the official religion. (In the case of Malaysia, it is the 
            National Ideology and in Indonesia, known as Pancasila). In 
            Singapore, nation-building was one of the top priority during this 
            period. However, the state continued its policy of religious 
            neutrally. Prime Minister Lee continued to reaffirm this state 
            policy and reminded the general population that "religion in a 
            secular state like Singapore must never become a source of friction 
            and animosity between the different religious groups" (ibid: 695). 
            He urged the Buddhists, when addressing the Thirty-fifth Anniversary 
            of the (Singapore) Buddhist Union to "grow in strength, and help 
            make Singapore a more tolerant and a harmonious nation despite our 
            many different religions" (ibid: 695). 
            The PAP government has adopted a very consistent policy since 1965 
            in regards to its multi-religious policy. The Maria Hertogh 
            incident(1) has further proven the government to be correct, that 
            any slackening in vigilance in religious affairs among the ethnic 
            groups could result in sectarian violence. It has also convinced the 
            government that the only way to prevent sectarian strife from 
            destroying the fragile ethno-religious fabric of the nation is to 
            spell out clearly the roles and responsibilities of each religion 
            and their organisations in Singapore. 
            In the early eighties, the recognition by the state, hence 
            legitimation, of the religious contribution to moral values in 
            Singapore (through the moral education programme in school), has 
            encouraged the main religions to adopt a higher public profile. This 
            together with the global trend in religious revivalism, have led to 
            aggressive proselytization by some Christian evangelical groups and 
            Dakwah members. The latter has led to conflict of interests and 
            dissatisfaction at both the interreligious and intra-religious 
            levels. The established Buddhist-Daoist, Islamic and Hindu 
            communities were dissatisfied with the proselytisation carried out 
            by Christian evangelists. Likewise, some Muslims saw the Dakwah 
            members and movement a threat to their Islamic practice. The 
            Buddhists and Hindus were also forced to respond to this intense 
            religious competition. 
            Amidst all these rivalries and competition for membership, the state 
            responded with the introduction of the Maintenance of Religious 
            Harmony Act, henceforth known as the Act, to prevent such tensions 
            from becoming overt violence. This swift and decisive action was to 
            prevent a repeat of the 1969 Racial Riot where clashes between the 
            Malays and Chinese were grounded with religious overtones. 
            White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony (The Paper) 
            When addressing the Parliament in January 1989, the President 
            stressed the importance of maintaining religious harmony in a 
            multi-religious Singapore. 
            Religious Tolerance and Moderation. Religious harmony is as 
            important to us 
            as racial harmony. Singapore is a secular state, and the supreme 
            source of 
            political authority is the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees 
            
            freedom of religion. However, in Singapore racial distinctions 
            accentuate 
            religious ones. Religious polarization will cause sectarian strife. 
            We can 
            only enjoy harmonious and easy racial relationship if we practise 
            religious 
            tolerance and moderation (The Act: 1). 
            The Religious Harmony Act, came into effect in March 1992, allows 
            the government to take action against the various religious groups 
            which violate the act, i. e. serve restraining orders on leaders and 
            members of a religion who threaten Singapore's religious harmony by 
            their words or actions, and those who conduct political and 
            subversive activities under the guise of religion (The Paper: 9-10). 
            
            To maintain this harmony, it is the policy of the government to 
            prevent and a tacit understanding among the various religions to 
            refrain from aggressive proselytization and conversion. In the White 
            Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony, the goal is: 
            to preserve harmony, Singaporeans, whether or not they belong to any 
            
            organised religious group, must not cause disharmony, ill-will or 
            hostility 
            between different religious or non-religious groups. In particular, 
            religious groups, in exercising their freedom of religion, should: 
            a. acknowledge the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our 
            
            society, and the sensitivities of other religious groups; 
            b. emphasise the moral values common to all faiths; 
            c. respect the right of each individual to hold his own beliefs and 
            to 
            accept or not to accept any religion; 
            d. not allow their members, followers, officials or clergy from 
            acting 
            disrespectfully towards other religions or religious groups; and 
            e. not influence or incite their members to hostility or violence 
            towards 
            other groups, whether religious or non-religious (ibid: 5). 
            The state keeps a close watch on the religious activities of the 
            various groups. So long as the groups adhere to the guidelines laid 
            down in the Act, the state have, till recently, refrained from 
            intervening in the religious affairs and religious groups were given 
            autonomy in running their activities. Here again, the emphasis is on 
            religious sensitivity. The government argues that respect and 
            sensitiveness for other religions are important for the social 
            stability of the nation-state. The Maria Hertogh case continued to 
            impact on the government's treatment of religions, reflecting on 
            their fear of another eruption of ethnic violence if religious 
            issues were not handled carefully. Added to this is the global trend 
            towards ethno-religious revivalism and the outburst of violence 
            among religious sectarian groups in Sri Lanka and ethnic cleansing 
            among some East European countries, which served as a reminder of 
            the potentially volatile situation at home. 71be state keeps a close 
            guard on the religious affairs of its citizenry, forcing the major 
            religious groups to practice within their own religious boundary. 
            Religion and Politics 
            On the one level, the Singapore government viewed the 
            ethno-religious conflicts in Sri Lanka and the former Yugoslavia as 
            examples of the failure of the state to separate religion and 
            politics in a clear fashion. It was also the weakness of the state 
            which caved in to the pressures and ethnic chauvinism of one ethnic 
            group as the Sri-Lanka case illustrated when the majority urban 
            Buddhist Singhalese were determined to reestablish Sri Lanka as a 
            Buddhist state. The Tamil minority retaliated with militancy to 
            protect their own religious interests. The bitter war fought between 
            the Muslim Serbs and the Christian Croats emerged as a result of the 
            disintegration of Soviet Union where, without a strong central 
            government, the original ethnic proclivities reasserted their 
            territorial claims. 
            On the other level, the government was determined to prevent any 
            overt conflicts by monitoring closely the development of religious 
            activities, especially the influence from overseas. The Christian 
            Liberation Theology Movement which found its followers from the 
            underclasses in Latin America and the Philippines were closely 
            monitored by the state when it started appearing in Singapore. 
            Likewise, prominent foreign Muslim leaders and scholars expounding 
            the Dakwah ideology were also subjected to close observation. 
            Several events in Singapore in the mid-eighties illustrated the 
            volatile nature and the need for careful treatment of religious 
            activities. One widely publicised incident was the arrest of several 
            Catholic priests and lay workers by the government.(2) This action 
            was criticised by some Singaporeans and given wide foreign media 
            coverage by foreign journalists. 
            The incident began in the mid-eighties when a number of Catholic 
            priests became interested in the discussion of various social issues 
            surrounding the nation. Most of the priests were already involved in 
            some kind of welfare work, for example visiting prisons and 
            preaching to the prisoners. Several of the Catholic priests namely 
            Fathers Patrick Goh, Edgar D'Souza, Joseph Ho and Arotcarena formed 
            the Church and Society Group with an objective to discuss social 
            issues and made known their view to the congregation.(3) Through 
            various in-house publications, including the Catholic News, the team 
            sought to discuss various topics including the roles of trade 
            unions, National Wage Council and rights of workers; the roles of 
            multinational corporations in Singapore; the amendments to 
            citizenship laws, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Government 
            policies on TV3 and foreign workers. 
            The tone of the publications, according to the state, is an attempt 
            to appeal to the masses on grounds that they were "victims of 
            injustice, lies and untruths" (ISD in Act: 16). It upset the 
            government which prided itself of fair treatment and justice to the 
            people. To the government, this was an act of irresponsibility and 
            if Liberation Theology(4) were to be of this nature, then it has no 
            place in the Singapore society for the government perceived its 
            motive was to rock the very basic stability of the nation which the 
            PAP government have so painstakingly created for the past three 
            decades. 
            According to a report, to the Catholic priests and lay workers, in 
            line with the teachings of Liberation Theology, they felt that it 
            was their responsibility to be involved in social issues and to 
            create social consciousness among its congregation. The general view 
            was that the citizens were apathetic, apolitical and at times, too 
            afraid to speak their mind. They should be encouraged to do so as in 
            the social liberal societies of the European and American worlds. 
            Such actions were seen as leftist leanings towards Marxism, hence a 
            Marxist conspiracy to subvert the existing sociopolitical system.(5) 
            
            The conflicts of ideology between the government and the Catholic 
            priests reflected deep seated differences between the pragmatists on 
            the one hand and the social democrats on the other. Being 
            rationalists and pragmatists, the government, having gone through 
            the decolonisation process, the separation from Malaysia and the 
            struggle for survival during the early years of independence, 
            finally reaching the present stage of industrialisation, economic 
            progress and achieving the status of a developed nation, was not 
            prepared to let a few radical voices destroyed this very fragile 
            fabric. Otherwise, the three decades of progress could be destroyed 
            within a matter of months if the radicals managed to incite mass 
            movement. Also, attempts to bring the various ethnic groups together 
            and mutually co-exist in harmony by implementing all the multi-ism 
            policies could also be destroyed overnight. The government has 
            consistently stressed that the interests of the wider state is 
            paramount and all other sentiments should be subsumed under it. 
            While arrest was made to individual members, the government assured 
            the general population that it was not an attack on the Church 
            itself. The Church continues to function as before, but religion and 
            politics needed to be clearly separated. 
            A second incident underlying the need for the separation of religion 
            from politics was a series of lectures given by foreign Muslim 
            theologians which the government regarded as provocative and aimed 
            at inciting resentment against the government. 
            In 1973, a lecturer named Imaduddin Abdul Rahim from Indonesia was 
            invited to deliver a religious talk to the Muslim in Singapore. 
            During this period, the government was carrying out massive 
            resettlement schemes for its population. Many villages and rural 
            population were resettled in new towns. It was a extremely difficult 
            task to persuade villagers and families to relocate and acceptance 
            was slowly coming from these people. The speech argued that such 
            policy would eventually lead to a demolition of mosques and that "in 
            new housing estates such as Queenstown and Toa Payoh one could see 
            church steeples piercing the skyline and large non-Muslim prayer 
            houses around" (The Paper: 16). He further branded "local Muslims 
            and Malays as stooges' in their own country for failing to fulfil 
            their obligations" (ibid: 16). 
            In 1982, another Muslim theologian, Ahmed Hoosen Deedat, in his 
            speech compared Singapore Muslim with South African Malays and 
            commented that Singapore Muslims were passive and soft and that they 
            should be more militant. He criticized that "the early local Muslim 
            inhabitants of being complacent and failing to convert the Chinese 
            immigrants, so that the Chinese had taken over power from the 
            Muslims" (ibid: 17). He was also heard to be making disparaging 
            remarks on Christianity. 
            In 1984, a Malaysian religious teacher, Mat Saman bin Mohamed, at a 
            religious function in Singapore "expressed his disappointment over 
            the demolition of mosques in areas affected by urban redevelopment, 
            saying that this was tantamount to the destruction of Allah's house" 
            (ibid: 17). In 1986, again at the invitation of the Muslims, he was 
            reported as making a speech asserting that "Singapore belonged to 
            the Malays as they were natives of the island" (ibid: 17). He 
            further commented that "Malays had become a minority as a result of 
            the influx of foreigners to Singapore, and were now subservient to 
            the non-Malays" (ibid: 17), calling for Malay unity against the 
            majority race and saying that their plight would be supported by the 
            Malaysian Malays (ibid: 17). 
            With the resurgence of ethnic nationalism and chauvinism throughout 
            the world, it was not surprising that these radical theologians 
            should expound such views. But it was equally predictable that the 
            Singapore government would react by banning the three from 
            re-entering the country again. It should be clear by now that ethnic 
            sensitivities have been accorded top priority in governmental 
            policies and been taken very seriously by all concerned. The issues 
            surrounding Malay identity and Islam continued to be very sensitive 
            in this part of the world where the Singapore nation state with a 
            Chinese majority has to co-exist peacefully in a fragile 
            geopolitical balance with its Indonesian and Malaysian neighbours, 
            which have a majority Muslim population.(6) Islam is the state 
            religion of both Indonesian and Malaysia. Besides, the policies of 
            giving preferential treatment to the Bumiputras in Malaysia have 
            also caused discontent in some Muslim quarters in Singapore. While 
            Singapore adopted a policy of meritocracy, it also has to calm down 
            latent tension and dissatisfaction in the discontented quarters. The 
            1969 racial riot was simply too high a cost to be repeated again. 
            The government did not tolerate incitement of any kind from external 
            forces, neither was it prepared to allow its Muslim population to be 
            influenced by them. To them, the speeches made by these Muslim 
            theologians justified the ban on their re-entry. 
            A third incident concerned the Sikh and Indian communities in 
            Singapore. The assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi by Sikh extremists 
            in 1984 brought about increased tension between the two groups in 
            Singapore. There were four reported cases of assaults on Sikhs, acts 
            of vandalism on Sikh properties and several threatening phone calls 
            to Sikh individuals and institutions. Some Indian stall-holders 
            refused to serve Sikh customers while some Sikhs closed their shops 
            when they anticipated troubles. 
            Some Hindu temples and organisations made plans to hold condolence 
            gatherings for the late Indian prime minister. There was also a 
            Brahmin temple planning to place a condolence message in the Straits 
            Times and held prayers for Mrs Gandhi. The government viewed the 
            activities of the Sikh and Hindu activities with alarm. It acted by 
            advising against such a display of emotions both in the temple and 
            in the newspaper as it felt that such actions would only aggravate 
            the already tense situation between the two communities in 
            Singapore. It also argued that the politics of India should not be 
            the concern of the Singapore Indians and Sikhs, so advising calmness 
            in the treatment of this assassination. 
            On the part of the Sikh community, since 1984, some Sikh temples 
            commemorated the storming of the Golden Temple and prayer sessions 
            were held for those Sikhs who were killed. Speeches were also made, 
            condemning the Indian Government and urging the Singaporean Sikhs to 
            assist their Indian counterparts in their struggle for an 
            independent Sikh state. In 1989, a few Sikh temples held requiems 
            for the two Sikhs executed by the Indian government for the 
            assassination of Indira Gandhi. They also placed announcement in the 
            obituaries column of the Sunday Times, informing the intended prayer 
            time for these two executed Sikhs. Photographs and newspaper 
            cuttings were also displayed at the temple. The government reacted 
            swiftly to this. The Police called up the Sikh leaders and temple 
            officials, warning against holding further requiems for the two and 
            not to import foreign politics into Singapore or involve their 
            religious organisations in politics (ibid: 18). 
            The government advised the Sikh temples and their members against 
            providing funds and logistics support to militant Sikh separatist 
            groups in India and United Kingdom (who were fighting for an 
            independent Khalistan state in Punjab). While it is difficult to 
            stop individuals from donating to such cause, the government came 
            down hard on those temples that allowed its leaders or members to 
            make emotional appeals to congregation for donations for such cause. 
            
            Religion and Subversion 
            Another area of controversy was how different groups of people 
            viewed actions as being politically subversive. The so-called 
            Vincent Cheng and Marxist Conspiracy incident,(7) which attracted 
            international media coverage and attention of human rights groups, 
            fully illustrated the fear of the government, and the difficulties 
            in defining what constitutes social consciousness and what 
            constitutes subversion. Cheng and his cohorts were arrested under 
            the Internal Security Act and imprisoned without being given a 
            trial. Subsequently, most have been released after they publicly 
            confessed to their activities and admitted their mistakes. 
            To the government, Vincent Cheng and his cohorts were engaged in 
            activities that aimed at destabilising the country. He was seen to 
            be using Christianity (specifically Liberation Theology) and the 
            Church to advance the Communist cause (ISB in the Paper: 18).(8) He 
            was seen to embark "on a systematic plan to infiltrate, subvert and 
            control various Catholic and student organisations, including the 
            Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Church, and Catholic 
            student societies in the National University of Singapore and 
            Singapore Polytechnic. He planned to build a united front of 
            pressure groups for confrontation with the government" (ibid: 18). 
            The Internal Security Branch further reported that "under the aegis 
            of the Justice and Peace Commission, he organised talks, seminars 
            and workshop to arouse feelings of disaffection with society and the 
            urge for revolutionary change. He was seen to manipulate Church 
            publications like the Highlights and Dossier to subtly propagate 
            Marxist and leftist ideas, and to politicise his readers who 
            included priests and lay Catholics. Some of the articles were 
            perceived by the government as adopting familiar Communist arguments 
            to denounce the existing system as "exploitative," "unjust" and 
            "repressive" (ibid: 18). In an extracted confession and broadcasted 
            to the public via the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, Cheng was 
            seen to be making the following remark: 
            I would foresee that the building up of pressure groups would 
            develop to a stage where they would come into open confrontation 
            with the government. This confrontation ... would start off with 
            peaceful protests, public man petitions, which could lead further to 
            
            more mass events like mass rallies, mass demonstrations, strikes, 
            where more people are mobilised. And leading to public disorder 
            and maybe even rioting, bloodshed" (FEER, 27 Oct. 1987: 23). 
            The link between Cheng and the exiled radical student leader of the 
            seventies, Tan Wah Piow (and in 1985 stripped of Singapore 
            citizenship under a new law), led the government to conclude that 
            there was some kind of Communist conspiracy plot in the brewing 
            (ibid: 22-25). 
            In a highly critical article, Haas (1989) charged that the Singapore 
            government has confused political freedom with subversion and 
            leftish leanings with Communism, that there was no basis to prove 
            that Cheng and his cohorts were Marxists nor were there any plot to 
            overthrow the government. Haas also argued that the government's 
            theory of "Nip in the bud" was a dangerous way of viewing social 
            events. He said "to analogize politics to the biological determinism 
            of a bud opening into a flower or the growth of cancer is to espouse 
            an organismic theory of politics, long discredited .... (Haas, 1989: 
            68). He further argued that to wrest without trial under the 
            Internal Security Act goes against the very grain of what the PAP 
            government had fought for in the fifties against the British 
            colonial rule. In 1955 when the British colonial administrators 
            enacted the Internal Security Act, Lee Kuan Yew spoke against it: 
            If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you 
            cannot charge him with any offence against any written law -- if 
            that is not what we have always cried out against in fascist 
            states -- then what is it?... If we are to survive as a free 
            democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede 
            to our enemies... as much [sic) constitutional right as you 
            concede yourself... We say we dislike communism because, under that 
            form of government, they have arbitrary powers of arrest and 
            detention without trial.... 
            ... to curtail a fundamental liberty, and the most fundamental 
            of them all -- freedom from arrest and punishment without 
            having violated a specific provision of the law and being 
            convicted for it.. But no man should be deprived of his 
            liberty (Haas, 1989: 70). 
            The case of Vincent Cheng, his involvement in Liberation Theology 
            and his activities have once again draw attention to the 
            difficulties inherent in the political structure, of the ruler and 
            the ruled. It has also touched upon the inherent differences between 
            politics and academic discourses. The hardline approach taken by the 
            government by invoking the Internal Security Act in arresting 
            Vincent Cheng and his groups was seen by many critics as tantamount 
            to the "storm in a teacup" syndrome. But the government's critique 
            on bystanders are that they are not in the forefront of 
            decision-making and are ultimately not responsible for the actual 
            course of events. Given the course of history, the government, in 
            the final analysis, would prefer to err on the side of caution. 
            The Ikhwan, Muslim Brotherhood was also considered to have 
            subversive intention, hence undesirable in Singapore. The Internal 
            Security Branch reported that: 
            A few Muslim activists have also attempted to carry out subversive 
            activities under the guise of conducting religious activities. In 
            mid-1978, a university graduate formed a clandestine group of 
            extremists called "Ikhwan" or Muslim Brotherhood, with the long-term 
            
            aim of establishing an Islamic state, by armed means if necessary. 
            The group comprised 21 members, mostly recruited from religious 
            classes conducted by a Malaysian religious teacher then living in 
            Singapore. 
            Ikhwan planned to recruit pre-university students and undergraduates 
            
            by setting up religious discussion groups in their respective 
            school and institutions. They were to be trained as writers and 
            religious teachers in order to disseminate revolutionary ideas 
            and sow disaffection among the Muslims. Led by the Ikhwan, the 
            Muslims would then demand that the Government implement Islamic 
            laws similar to those in Saudi Arabia or Iran. If the Government 
            refused, the Ikhwan would spearhead an armed uprising. 
            By September 79, the Ikhwan had managed to penetrate the Malay 
            language societies of the then Ngee Ann Technical College and 
            the Singapore Polytechnic, and to take over a moribund Muslim 
            organisation, the Pertubohan Muslimin Singapura (PERMUSI), as a 
            front for their clandestine activities (ISD in Act: 19). 
            In this case, the Singapore government has invoked the ISA to arrest 
            five leading Ikhwan members while others were given warning. The 
            religious adviser from Malaysia was expelled and prohibited from 
            entering Singapore. The government reassured the Muslim population 
            that the arrest was targeted at individuals whose intention was to 
            subvert the state, but not at Islam per se. Islamic militancy has 
            now become the hallmark of many Islamic Jihad groups throughout the 
            world and any seed for the germination of such a movement in 
            Singapore would not be viewed kindly at all. 
            The separation of politics and religion was henceforth spelled out 
            clearly in the Act. Thus the White Paper states that; 
            Religious groups must not get themselves involved in the political 
            process. Conversely, no group can be allowed to exploit religious 
            issues or manipulate religious organisations, whether to excite 
            disaffection or to win political support. It does not matter if the 
            purpose of these actions is to achieve religious ideals or to 
            promote secular objectives. In a multi-religious society, if one 
            group violates this taboo, others will follow suit, and the outcome 
            will be militancy and conflict. 
            We will spell out these group rules clearly and unequivocally. All 
            political and religious groups must understand these ground 
            rules, mid abide by than scrupulously. If we violate them, even 
            the best intentions, our political stability will be imperilled 
            (The Paper. 1). 
            Inter and Intra-Religious Tensions 
            Part of the reason why this Act was introduced was the perception, 
            hence fear, of the state over the implications of uncontrolled 
            religious activities which would tore the basic social structural 
            fabric of Singapore society. Hence, it viewed the recent heightened 
            religious fervour in this light: 
            In recent years, there has been a definite increase in religious 
            fervour, missionary zeal, and assertiveness among the Christians, 
            Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups in Singapore. 
            Competition for followers and converts is becoming sharper and 
            more intense. More Singaporeans of many religions are inclining 
            towards strongly held exclusive beliefs, rather than the relaxed, 
            tolerant acceptance of and coexistence with other faiths. 
            This trend is part of a world-wide religious revival affecting 
            many countries, including the US and the Middle East. Its causes 
            lie beyond Singapore, and are not within our control. But in 
            Singapore this trend increases the possibility of friction and 
            misunderstanding among the different religious groups. Religion 
            is a deeply felt matter, and when religious sensitivities are 
            offended emotions are quickly aroused. It takes only a few 
            incidents to inflame passions, kindle violence, and destroy the 
            good record of religious harmony built up in recent decades. 
            The Maria Hertogh riots were a classic example (ibid: 3). 
            We therefore cannot assume that religious harmony will persist 
            indefinitely as a matter of course. Conscious efforts are 
            necessary to maintain it, especially by religious leaders and 
            groups. So long as Singaporean understand that they have to 
            live and let live, and show respect and tolerance for other 
            faiths, harmony should prevail. Religious groups should 
            not exceed these limits, for example 
            by denigrating other faiths, or by insensitively trying 
            to convert those belonging to other religions. If they do, 
            these other groups will feel attacked and threatened, and must 
            respond by mobilising themselves to protect their interests, 
            if necessary militantly. Similarly, if any religious group 
            used its religious authority to pursue secular political 
            objectives, other religions too must follow suit. Tensions 
            will build up, and there will be trouble for all. 
            Two vital conditions must therefore be observed to maintain 
            harmony. Firstly, followers of the different religions must 
            exercise moderation and tolerance, and do nothing to cause 
            religious enmity or hatred. Secondly, religion and politics 
            must be kept rigorously separated (ibid: 4). 
            Aggressive and Insensitive Proselytisation 
            Various reports commissioned by the government regarding religious 
            activities in Singapore have concluded that there is an increasing 
            trend towards aggressive proselytisation among different religious 
            groups.(9) This coincided with numerous complaints received by 
            various government bodies over aggressive evangelism, carried out 
            mostly by some Protestant churches and organisations. The Internal 
            Security Branch reported on the following: 
            University students have been harassed by over-zealous Christian 
            students. These student-preachers tried to convert fellow students 
            who felt depressed after failing their examinations. In hospitals, 
            some doctors and medical students have tried to convert critically 
            ill patients to Christianity on their death beds, without regards 
            for their vulnerabilities or for the sensitivities of their 
            relatives (ISB in the Paper 13). 
            It also reported on the inter and intra-religious tensions among the 
            various religious groups as a result of proselytisation where each 
            group tried to convert others to their faith. The following comments 
            were extracted from their report: 
            Christians and Hindus 
            The complaints by other religious groups are more serious. 
            Hindus have been perturbed by aggressive Christian 
            proselytisation. In August 1986, officials and devotees of 
            a Hindu temple found posters announcing a forthcoming 
            Christian seminar pasted at the entrance of their temple. 
            The Hindus also objected when Christian missionaries 
            distributed pamphlets to devotees going into temples in 
            Serangoon Road (ibid: 13). 
            Christians and Muslims 
            The Muslims are extremely sensitive to any attempt to convert 
            them to other faiths. They reacted indignantly when some 
            Christian groups stepped up evangelical activities in 1986. 
            A few groups distributed pamphlets in Malays that used the 
            word "Allah" for God. The Muslims accused these groups of 
            harassing and misleading them, since to them the word 
            "Allah" was specific to Islam. Some Muslims also received 
            extracts from an unidentified book containing inflammatory 
            remarks -- did Islam was a "cruel" and "devilish" religion 
            which encouraged "the killing of Christians" (ibid: 13). 
            Burial of Muslim Converts 
            There have also been disputes over the funerals of non-Muslims 
            who had converted to Islam. Two cases in July 1988 and 
            January 1989 involved Chinese converts. One belonged 
            to a Christian, and the other to a Buddhist family. The 
            families wanted to cremate the bodies according to 
            their respective Christian and Buddhist rites. But a Muslim 
            organisation applied for court orders to claim the bodies 
            and bury them according to Islamic rites. This naturally 
            upset the families, who considered themselves as next of 
            kin entitled under the law to decide on funeral arrangements. 
            Fortunately, these two disputes were settled amicably out of 
            court after government officials mediated (ibid: 14). 
            Intra-religious Tensions 
            a) Muslims and Ahmadis 
            There is a long-standing dispute between orthodox local Muslim 
            organisations and their Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission. In 
            the mid-1980s, when the Ahmadis called their new building at 
            Onan Road a mosque, local Muslim organisations protested. In 
            early 1989, the Ahmadiyya mission deposited literature in 
            letter-boxes, including boxes belonging to Muslim residents. 
            Some orthodox Muslim were enraged, and expressed grave concern 
            that the pamphlets would mislead and confuse Muslim youths. 
            Meanwhile, the Ahmadis continued to assert that they were true 
            Muslims, and mounted a propaganda campaign to refute allegations 
            that they were a deviant sect (ibid: 14). 
            b) Hindu 
            In October 89, Hindu sect, the Shiv Mandir, burnt an effigy of 
            Ravana, a Hindu mythological king, during a religious festival. 
            The Shiv Mandir claimed that the ritual was an ancient practice 
            marking Lord Ramachandra's triumph over the demon king 
            Ravana and symbolised the triumph of good over evil. Tamil 
            Hindus were incensed by the ceremony. Some saw it as an 
            Aryan attempt to humiliate and belittle the Dravidians, 
            for Ramachandra was an Aryan while Ravana a Dravidian. A few 
            asserted that Ravana was not a demon king. They wanted to 
            stage a protest demonstration at the Shiv Mandir function 
            and threatened to burn the effigy of Lord Ramachandra in 
            retaliation (ibid: 14-15). 
            c) Christians 
            Some Protestants have distributed pamphlets and booklets 
            denigrating the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. Some 
            of these materials described the Pope as a Communist, 
            and even as the anti-Christ. The Catholic Church publication, 
            the Catholic News, has responded by condemning these attempts 
            by "fundamental Christian groups to confuse Catholics." Some 
            Protestant groups have also criticised other denominations, 
            including Charismatics and Ecumenists, in their publications 
            (ibid: 15). 
            In all these cases, it involved complaints to the government 
            departments which took action to mediate the tensions among the 
            groups concerned. In all cases, the leaders of these religious 
            groups were summoned to the Internal Security Department and warned 
            against instituting activities that would cause misunderstanding and 
            conflict. In all cases, the groups involved halted their activities. 
            
            The recent rising tide of religious fervour among all religious 
            groups have meant that groups and individuals dike were swept along 
            with the whirlwind, which created its own momentum. The state was 
            determined that this whirlwind force would not get out of control. 
            The White Paper spelled out further on this issue: 
            Many religions enjoin their followers to proselytise others who have 
            
            not embraced the same faith, in order to propagate the religion. 
            Christian refer to this as "bearing witness," while Muslims engage 
            in dakwah activities. This liberty to proselytise is pan of the 
            freedom of religion protected by the Constitution. However, in 
            Singapore it must be exercised very sensitively. It is one thing 
            to preach to a person who is interested in converting to a new 
            faith. It is another to try to convert a person of a different 
            religion by denigrating his religion, especially if he has no 
            desire to be converted. In such cases, the potential for giving 
            offence is great. For this reason, the Government has always 
            discouraged Christian groups from aggressively evangelising among 
            the Malay Muslim community in Singapore. 
            Harm can be done even without the direct contact of proselytization. 
            
            Each religion has its own comprehensive doctrines and theology. 
            Some faiths, for example Buddhism, readily accept other religions 
            and practices, but others, including both Christianity and Islam, 
            are by their nature exclusive. Each religious group, in instructing 
            its own followers, will naturally need to point out where its 
            doctrines differ from other religions, and indeed from other 
            branches of the same religion, and why it regards the others as 
            being 
            mistaken. While it is legitimate, it is possible to go too far. 
            An unrestrained preacher pouring forth blood and thunder and 
            denouncing the followers of other faiths as misguided infidels 
            and lost souls may cause great umbrage to entire communities. If 
            they then retaliate with equal virulence, or worse escalate the 
            quarrel by attacking the persons and desecrating the places of 
            worship of the opposing faithful, the tolerance and mutual 
            trust which forms the basis of Singapore society will be 
            permanently destroyed. 
            The futures of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism as world 
            religions are secure regardless of how many Christians, Muslims, 
            Hindus or Buddhists there may be among Singaporeans. However, if 
            any religious group in Singapore seeks to increase the number of 
            its converts drastically, at the expense of the other faiths 
            or attempts to establish a dominant or exclusive position for 
            itself, it will be strenuously resisted by the other groups. This 
            is a fact of life in Singapore which has to be faced squarely 
            (The Paper. 4-5). 
            Another area which the Act specifically seeks to contain is the use 
            of religion for political causes. This was in response to the 
            emerging Liberation Theology Movements found in certain section of 
            the Christian churches and the Fundamental Islamic Movement which 
            led to the arrest of some Christian clergy and lay Christians and 
            the expulsion of some Muslim theologians in the mid-eighties. The 
            Paper states that: 
            ... religious leaders and members of religious groups should 
            refrain from promoting any political party or cause under the 
            cloak of religion. The leaders should not incite their faithful 
            to defy, challenge or actively oppose secular Government policies, 
            much less mobilise their followers or their organisations for 
            subversive purposes.... 
            Members of religious groups may, of course, participate in the 
            democratic political process as individual citizens. They may 
            campaign for or against the Government or any political party. 
            But they must not do so as leaders of their religious constituency. 
            Religious leaders are in a particularly delicate position. An 
            Archbishop, Pastor, Abbot, or Mufti is a religious personage, 
            whether or not be puts on his robes or mounts his pulpit. It is 
            not to be expected that every religious leader will always agree 
            with every policy of the Government. But whatever their political 
            views, they should express them circumspectively. They should 
            not use their religious authority to sway their followers, much 
            less actively incite them to oppose the Government (ibid: 6). 
            The Paper also stipulated that the views of the sacred and the 
            profane might differ vastly, especially on issues which to the 
            Government are legitimate concerns for public policy, but which to 
            some faiths pose moral and religious questions. But issues such as 
            these should be left to the individuals to decide. 
            Many Christians, particularly Catholics, consider abortion 
            to be morally wrong. The Government's policy is to allow 
            women wanting abortions to get one. However, whether or 
            not a pregnant woman wants to undergo an abortion, and 
            whether or not a doctor or nurse wants to carry out abortions, 
            are clearly issues of conscience, to be decided by each 
            person for himself or herself. On such issues, religious groups 
            may and do properly take positions and preach to their followers. 
            Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their religion forbids them 
            to do any form of National Service. Under the law this is 
            criminal conduct, not conscientious objection. Followers of 
            this sect who refuse to obey call up orders are court martial 
            and serve jail sentences. 
            Some Christian groups consider radical social action, as 
            practised in Latin America or the Philippines, to be a vital 
            part of Christian faith. Whether or not this is the practise 
            elsewhere, if para-religious social action groups become an 
            active political force in Singapore, they will cause heightened 
            political and religious tensions (ibid: 7). 
            In formulating the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the purpose 
            "is to establish working rules by which many faiths can accept 
            fundamental differences between them, and coexist peacefully in 
            Singapore" (emphasis-mine) (ibid: 7). 
            Under this Act, the government is empowered to take actions it deems 
            as appropriate to prevent religious disharmony. Individuals engaged 
            in the following conduct could be prosecuted in the court and be 
            subjected to fine or imprisonment: 
            a. Causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility or 
            prejudicing the maintenance of harmony between different religious 
            groups; 
            b. carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a 
            cause of any political society while, under the guise of, 
            propagating 
            or practising any religious belief; 
            c. carrying out subversive activities under the guise of 
            propagating or practising any religious belief; or 
            d. exciting disaffection against the President or the Government. 
            The Orders has power to prohibit the individual from: 
            a. addressing any congregation, or group or worshipper on any 
            subject specified in the order, 
            b. Printing, publishing, distributing or contributing to 
            any publication produced by that religious group; 
            c. holding office in any editorial board or committee of any 
            publication produced by that group (ibid: 9-11). 
            Establishing a Stable Tension -- Presidential Council for Religious 
            Harmony 
            A meditating body, the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, 
            would be set up "to consider and report on matters affecting the 
            maintenance of religious harmony, which are referred to it by the 
            Government or Parliament. It will also consider Prohibition Orders 
            issued by the Minister" (ibid: 11). The Presidential Council for 
            Religious Council, provided for by the Religious Harmony Act, was 
            established in August 1992 with representatives from the main 
            religious bodies in Singapore. They include one representative from 
            the Buddhists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Christian Protestants, 
            Hindus and Sikhs communities. Included in this is the former Chief 
            Justice who is the chairperson and two lay representatives. 
            The main objective of the Council is to ensure religious harmony 
            among the various communities. The functions of the Council include 
            the following: (1) to consider and report to the minister on matters 
            affecting the maintenance of religious harmony which are referred to 
            it by the minister or Parliament; (2) to consider and make 
            recommendations on restraining orders referred to it by the 
            minister; (3) the council could also advise the President whether he 
            should confirm restraining orders imposed by the minister, (4) it 
            could also summon those under restraining orders to hear their views 
            (ST, 2 August 1992: 1). 
            In a way, this Council would serve as a bridge between the state on 
            the one hand and the religious organisations and public on the 
            other. In creating this Council, the state has in fact passed over 
            the responsibility of the maintenance of religious harmony to the 
            people themselves. The leaders of each religion would ensure that 
            those under their care would fall in line and that tension and 
            violence would not break out. In short, self imposed restraints 
            become important. While not denying that tensions would always 
            remain in situations of intense competition and rivalry, the idea is 
            to established a stable tension among the religious groups. 
            Enshrined in the Constitution of Singapore is the clause pertaining 
            to the freedom of workship. And the Religious Harmony Act spelled 
            precisely what this freedom of worship means. At the individual 
            level, the individuals could choose whatever they want to workship. 
            They could also encourage family members, friends and colleagues to 
            participate but not coerced and forced them to join. The line 
            dividing the act of persuasion and coercion is very thin. If there 
            is no complaints, then it is the act of persuasion. But if there is 
            dissatisfaction and complaints, it becomes coercion. But when a 
            group engages all its members to go out and persuade others, whom 
            they do not know, particularly those in public places, it is 
            coercion. And within the law, they could be stopped from this act of 
            proselytisation. 
            Religious competition can be seen as a healthy sign. It prevents the 
            various religious groups from becoming complacent. In a way, it 
            forces these groups to be vigilant and to cater to the needs of 
            their adherents. The demands of the adherents would set in motion 
            the internal dynamics which would usher in changes and development. 
            Alternatively, it could revert back to orthodoxy. In the case of 
            Singapore, the two forces of change and a return to orthodoxy are in 
            action. The availability of these varieties of religions allowed the 
            lay people to shop the one that suits their needs most. However, 
            each group is not allowed to dominate through the use of force, or 
            intense and unscrupulous acts of proselytisation. The Act thus 
            intends to define and maintain the religious boundary of these 
            groups. So long as all the players adhered to the rules of the 
            games, the maintenance of a stable tension would be upheld and is 
            beneficial to all. The Singapore State, with its visionary 
            leadership and efficient bureaucracy, once again, is able to 
            dominate and set the agenda. 
            Conclusion 
            To the state, there is a clear cut separation between religion and 
            the secular institutions. Any activity that fall outside the realm 
            of religion should be treated as such. By introducing the 
            Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, it is sending a message to its 
            citizenry to confine its religious pursuit within the known 
            religious boundary. Any other non-related and non-religious 
            activities within the religious boundary would not be acceptable to 
            the state. The Singapore state has once again pre-empted and taken 
            immediate actions in their dealing of religious affairs. 
            Furthermore, by establishing the Presidential Council for Religious 
            Harmony and recruiting the religious leaders from the mainstream 
            religious groups as members of the council, the state is, in fact, 
            placed not only the responsibility of religious activities but the 
            maintenance of religious harmony among the major religious and 
            ethnic groups squarely on the shoulders of these religious leaders. 
            In short, these religious institutions inter alia their leaders are 
            now accountable to the state for their own conduct as well as the 
            religious well being of other groups. 
            Notes: 
            (1.) The Maria Hertogh Riot Incident involved the case of a Dutch 
            Eurasian girl. Baptized in 1937 after her birth, she was given away 
            in 1943 when her parents were arrested by the Japanese. She was 
            adopted and raised as a Muslim by a Malay family. In 1948 her 
            parents discovered her whereabout and brought out a lawsuit for 
            custody of her. But Maria Hertogh was returned to her foster parents 
            in 1950 and was rushed into marriage. A further court hearing 
            removed her from her Malay husband. All the while, there was 
            heightened ethno-religious tension between the two groups, resulting 
            in a riot. For a further discussion, see Clutterbuck, R., 1973: 
            72-73. 
            (2.) For a discussion on this, see Far Eastern Economic Review, 4 
            June 1987; 2 July 1987; 22 October 1987, 17 December 1997. 
            (3.) See Far Eastern Economic Review, 4 June 1987, p. 9. 
            (4.) For a discussion on the origin of Liberation Theology, see 
            Smith, C., The Emergence of Liberation Theology, (Chicago: Chicago 
            University Press. 1991). 
            (5.) See Far Eastern Economic Review, 22 October 1987, pp. 22-24. 
            (6.) In 1993, there were comments by the Indonesian government 
            questioning the loyalty of its Chinese population over the issue of 
            their increased investment in the People's Republic of China, 
            instead of investing in Indonesia. 
            (7.) For a critical analysis of this, see Haas, M., "The Politics of 
            Singapore in the 1980s," in Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 19, 
            No. 1, pp. 48-77. 
            (8.) This was a report filed by the Internal Security Branch (ISB) 
            and included in the annex of the White Paper. 
            (9.) See Tong, C. IC, 1988 and 1989; Kuo, E. C. Y., Quah, J. S. T. 
            and Tong, C. K., 1988, and Quah, J. S. T., 1987. 
            References: 
            Brown, D. (1994) "Ethnicity and Corporatism in Singapore," in The 
            State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia, London: Routledge. 
            Caplan, L. (Ed.) (1987) Studies in Religious Fundamentalism, London: 
            Macmillian Press. 
            Chan, H. C. (1975) "Politics in an Administrative State: Where Has 
            the Politics Gone?," in Seah, C.M. (Ed.), Trends in Singapore, 
            Singapore: Singapore University Press. 
            Chua, B. H. (1995) Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in 
            Singapore, London: Routledge. 
            Clutterbuck, R. (1973) Riot and Revolution in Singapore and Malaya 
            1945-63, London: Faber and Faber Limited. 
            Department of Statistics (1980) Singapore, Census of Population. 
            Evers, H.D. and Siddique, S. (1993) "Religious Revivalism in 
            Southeast Asia: An Introduction," Sojourn, 8 (1): 1-10. 
            Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), 4 June 1987; 2 July 1987; 22 
            October 1987; 17 December 1987. 
            Haas, M. (1989) "The Politics of Singapore in the 1980s," Journal of 
            Contemporary Asia, 19(1): 48-77. 
            Hill, M. and Lian K. F. (1995) The Politics of Nation Building and 
            Citizenship in Singapore, London: Routledge. 
            Kuah, K. E. (1990) "Confucian Ideology and Social Engineering in 
            Singapore," Journal of Contemporary Asia, 20(3), pp. 371-383. 
            -- (1991) "State and Religion: Buddhism and Nation-Building in 
            Singapore," Pacific Viewpoint; 32(1), pp. 24-42. 
            Kuo, E. C. Y., Quah, J.S.T. and Tong, C. K. (1988) Religion and 
            Religious Revivalism in Singapore, Report prepared for the Ministry 
            of Community Development, Singapore. 
            Ling, T. (1989) "Religion," in Sandhu, K. S. and Wheatley, P. (Eds.) 
            Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Singapore: 
            Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 692-709. 
            Matthews, B. and Nagata, J., (1986) Religion, Values and Development 
            in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. 
            Nagata, J. (1984) The Reflowering of Malaysian Islam: Modern 
            Religious Radicals and Their Roots, Vancouver. University of British 
            Columbia Press. 
            Piscatori, J. P. (ed.) (1983) Islam in the Political Process, 
            Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
            Quah, J. S. T., Chan H. C. and Seah, C. M. (eds.) (1985) Government 
            and Politics of Singapore, Singapore: Oxford University Press. 
            Quah, J. S. T. (1987) Religion and Religious Conversion in 
            Singapore: A Review of Literature, Report prepared for the Ministry 
            of Community Development, Singapore. 
            Rodan, G. (ed.) (1993) Singapore Changes Guard, New York: St. 
            Martin's Press. 
            Smith, C. (1991) The Emergence of Liberation Theology, Chicago: 
            Chicago University Press. 
            Straits Times (ST), 1 November 1990, 10 November 1990, 2 March 1991; 
            14 March 1991; 16 September 1991; 2 August 1992. 
            Teo, S. S. (1980-1981) Religion and Social Mobility. A Study of the 
            Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International (Singapore 
            Chapter), Singapore: University of Singapore, Department of 
            Sociology, Academic Exercise, unpublished. 
            Vasil, R. K. (1984) Governing Singapore, Singapore: Eastern 
            U